First, keiths hasn't refused to support his claims. He has provided links to what he says is that support. Whether or not you agree that his evidence supports his claims, saying that he hasn't tried is not true.

That isn't supporting his claims. Follow the link yourself. I provided it upthread. I can't see anything that justifies calling Joshua Swamidass a liar or a charlatan. He needs to identify the statements and explain why he thinks they are the statements of a liar and a charlatan. Go on, have a look for yourself.

Second, even if his claims are utterly unsupported, you and at least two other admins handled the situation very poorly. As I noted above, a reasonable steward of TSZ who is aligned with Elizabeth's goals for the site would have behaved something like this:

Quote

A member makes a post that doesn't violate any existing rules, but an admin thinks Elizabeth might not want to publish it. The admin contacts Elizabeth by email with a link to the actual post and asks for her opinion. If Elizabeth agrees, the admin makes the post unavailable and has a quiet word with the member to explain the situation. The admin updates the rules page. The member has the option to rewrite and resubmit the post within the new rules.

Interestingly, while catching up on the Moderation Issues thread, I noticed that there was an issue with a racist comment that was handled similarly to how this should have been.

And during that episode, Lizzie reempasized that she expects admins to act on their own initiative. So I did. And as you say, I handled it badly. I should have switched the OP back to draft status immediately on seeing it. Hindsight is wonderful.

Second, even if his claims are utterly unsupported, you and at least two other admins handled the situation very poorly. As I noted above, a reasonable steward of TSZ who is aligned with Elizabeth's goals for the site would have behaved something like this:

Quote

A member makes a post that doesn't violate any existing rules, but an admin thinks Elizabeth might not want to publish it. The admin contacts Elizabeth by email with a link to the actual post and asks for her opinion. If Elizabeth agrees, the admin makes the post unavailable and has a quiet word with the member to explain the situation. The admin updates the rules page. The member has the option to rewrite and resubmit the post within the new rules.

Interestingly, while catching up on the Moderation Issues thread, I noticed that there was an issue with a racist comment that was handled similarly to how this should have been.

And during that episode, Lizzie reempasized that she expects admins to act on their own initiative.

The important difference being, in this case, Elizabeth was available and gave you explicit instructions on how she wanted you to handle the situation. You ignored those and abused your admin privileges.

Quote

So I did. And as you say, I handled it badly. I should have switched the OP back to draft status immediately on seeing it. Hindsight is wonderful.

You had 30 days to fix your failure to follow Elizabeth's instructions and instead you doubled down and abused your admin privileges in your treatment of me as well as keiths.

he important difference being, in this case, Elizabeth was available and gave you explicit instructions on how she wanted you to handle the situation. You ignored those and abused your admin privileges.

I acted as I saw fit as events unfolded. Lizzie could have reversed my decision at any time.

Quote

You owe him an apology.

I think that would be premature. Should keiths establish that Joshua Swamidass is indeed a liar and a charlatan, I'll reconsider. Has Patrick found any evidence to support those allegations yet?

Would Patrick suggest that if keiths is unable to support his allegations against Joshua Swamidass, he might consider an apology?

he important difference being, in this case, Elizabeth was available and gave you explicit instructions on how she wanted you to handle the situation. You ignored those and abused your admin privileges.

I acted as I saw fit as events unfolded. Lizzie could have reversed my decision at any time.

She was in and out of network connectivity. She gave you clear instructions. You failed to follow them, choosing instead to act on a personal grudge.

You have demonstrated that you can't be trusted to support TSZ's goals, even when explicitly told how to do so by the site owner. You are not fit to be an admin of the site.

Quote

Quote

You owe him an apology.

I think that would be premature. Should keiths establish that Joshua Swamidass is indeed a liar and a charlatan, I'll reconsider. Has Patrick found any evidence to support those allegations yet?

Good. How long need we wait for either support for the allegation that Joshua Swamidass is a liar and a charlatan or an apology in view of the fact such evidence doesn't exist?

That's up to keiths. My understanding is that he will not be responding on TSZ until Elizabeth returns. He knows he can't trust you, Neil, or DNA_Jock not to modify or remove his comments. That has a chilling effect on participation.

In the meantime, nothing is stopping you from doing the right thing. You should apologize for flouting Elizabeth's instructions and abusing your admin privileges in order to take your personal animosity out on keiths. He wasn't allowed to modify his post, as Elizabeth directed, and you grossly exceeded your authority by banning him for 30 days. You have behaved badly throughout this situation. The least you can do at this late date is admit it.

That's up to keiths. My understanding is that he will not be responding on TSZ until Elizabeth returns. He knows he can't trust you, Neil, or DNA_Jock not to modify or remove his comments. That has a chilling effect on participation.

That's correct. The moderators have brazenly abused their privileges, and I have no intention of participating further until there is a grown-up in the room who can prevent further abuses.

And of course, I supported my charge of lying in my comments at Peaceful Science. Not only that, I wanted to discuss the issue further.

That's precisely why I created the TSZ thread, and it's why I linked to the discussion at Peaceful Science.

The moderators banned me for 30 days, preventing the discussion from happening.

And now Alan has been caught lying (again), falsely claiming that I didn't even attempt to support my accusation.

He truly is unfit to be a moderator.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Good. How long need we wait for either support for the allegation that Joshua Swamidass is a liar and a charlatan or an apology in view of the fact such evidence doesn't exist?

That's up to keiths. He knows he can't trust you, Neil, or DNA_Jock not to modify or remove his comments. That has a chilling effect on participation.

In the meantime, nothing is stopping you from doing the right thing. You should apologize for flouting Elizabeth's instructions and abusing your admin privileges in order to take your personal animosity out on keiths. He wasn't allowed to modify his post, as Elizabeth directed, and you grossly exceeded your authority by banning him for 30 days. You have behaved badly throughout this situation. The least you can do at this late date is admit it.

Quote

That's up to keiths. My understanding is that he will not be responding on TSZ until Elizabeth returns.

Why can't he do it here? Remember, he published an OP at TSZ that calls Joshua Swamidass a liar and a charlatan and has so far provided no evidence to support those scurrilous allegations.

Why cannot keiths either

1. provide evidence that Joshua Swamidass is a liar and a charlatan. Following the link keiths claims I didn't follow produces no such evidence as Patrick must have confirmed, had he also followed that link.

2. Simply acknowledge he has no supporting evidence fo alleging that Joshua Swamidass is a liar and a charlatan and apologise to Dr Swamidass for making those unfounded allegations.

Quote

He knows he can't trust you, Neil, or DNA_Jock not to modify or remove his comments. That has a chilling effect on participation.

Yes that question mark was a mistake. As I said, with hindsight, I should have simply switched the OP to draft status without bothering to exchange comments with keiths. Fortunately, that issue should not happen again if all TSZ members share the same role as contributor, a change I've suggested. This will mean any new OP will need an admin to publish it. As we now have six admins, that will be a strong safeguard against bias.

Quote

In the meantime, nothing is stopping you from doing the right thing. You should apologize for flouting Elizabeth's instructions and abusing your admin privileges in order to take your personal animosity out on keiths. He wasn't allowed to modify his post, as Elizabeth directed, and you grossly exceeded your authority by banning him for 30 days. You have behaved badly throughout this situation. The least you can do at this late date is admit it.

I disagree on the "wasn't allowed to modify his post". He tried to circumvent admins efforts in dealing with the defamatory post by publishing it as a comment. The modification essentially amounted to substituting "falsehood" for "lie".

If you look at the full context, he was actually being sincere about the lying problem, and not just in that one comment. You'll also notice that he hasn't denied it here, though I've brought it up more than once.

It doesn't really matter either way. As this thread reiterates, his lying problem is real, and so is his abuse of moderator privileges in service of a personal grudge. Whether he owns up to the problem is secondary.

Edited by keiths on Sep. 10 2018,08:43

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

You censored the discussion at TSZ by suspending me. I refuse to reward your censorship by discussing it here, rather than at TSZ, where the discussion belongs.

Quote

I disagree on the "wasn't allowed to modify his post".

Then you're denying the obvious.

I modified it, removing both the accusation of lying and the reference to Swamidass as a "charlatan". Neil refused to publish it. You backed him, and you subsequently suspended me for 30 days -- the most severe penalty ever, short of a permanent ban, and at a blog where the owner is opposed to censorship.

It was shameful behavior -- an antagonistic response to a conciliatory move, based on a personal grudge, and it was censorship. You abused your moderation powers and inflamed the situation when you should have been working to de-escalate it.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

The modification essentially amounted to substituting "falsehood" for "lie".

Which makes all the difference in the world, because it allows for the possibility that the falsehoods are not deliberate.

I de-escalated, removing the accusation of lying. You responded by imposing the most draconian punishment ever seen at TSZ, short of a permanent ban.

You deliberately inflamed the situation when you should have been working to calm it. You broke the rules and abused your privileges, in service of a personal grudge. You ignored Lizzie's aims and indulged your own worst tendencies.

And you once again created a huge, unnecessary moderation kerfuffle. And Lizzie, once again, has to step in and clean up your mess.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

In the meantime, nothing is stopping you from doing the right thing. You should apologize for flouting Elizabeth's instructions and abusing your admin privileges in order to take your personal animosity out on keiths. He wasn't allowed to modify his post, as Elizabeth directed, and you grossly exceeded your authority by banning him for 30 days. You have behaved badly throughout this situation. The least you can do at this late date is admit it.

I disagree on the "wasn't allowed to modify his post".

Then you're disagreeing with reality. keiths attempted to revise his post and was prohibited from doing so by Neil.

Quote

He tried to circumvent admins efforts in dealing with the defamatory post by publishing it as a comment. The modification essentially amounted to substituting "falsehood" for "lie".

That substitution changes the meaning and should have been allowed, per Elizabeth.

Everything you've written here is nothing more than an attempt to distract from your behavior. You should apologize for flouting Elizabeth's instructions and abusing your admin privileges in order to take your personal animosity out on keiths.

Anyway, I think that's enough repetition from me. To all AtBC readers, thanks for your indulgence. Feel free to drop in at TSZ, any time.

Running away doesn't change the fact that you ignored Elizabeth's explicit instructions, violated several TSZ rules, and abused your admin privileges to settle a personal score. You owe both keiths and Elizabeth an apology.

Which makes all the difference in the world, because it allows for the possibility that the falsehoods are not deliberate.

Quote

1. Falsehood, fib, lie, untruth refer to something untrue or incorrect. A falsehood is a statement that distorts or suppresses the truth, in order to deceive: to tell a falsehood about one's ancestry in order to gain acceptance. A fib denotes a trivial falsehood, and is often used to characterize that which is not strictly true: a polite fib. A lie is a vicious falsehood: to tell a lie about ...

-Bing

If it's incorrect, but represents a person's sincere belief, it qualifies for Lizzie's version of protected speech. Disagree with the argument, but do not characterize the arguer as insincere.

--------------Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

If it's incorrect, but represents a person's sincere belief, it qualifies for Lizzie's version of protected speech.

You're confused about the actual issue here.

This dispute has nothing to do with whether Swamidass violated the rules or whether his statements are "protected speech" at TSZ. For one thing, he made his statements at Peaceful Science, not at TSZ, so the TSZ rules do not apply. Second, it isn't just sincere statements that are protected at TSZ. Insincere statements and outright lies are also protected. They're not desirable, of course, and Lizzie doesn't encourage them, but they aren't prohibited by the rules. It's easy to see why. The endless moderation kerfuffles are bad enough as it is. Just imagine what it would be like if the the moderators could guano statements merely because they considered them to be false!

So the rules -- for good reason -- don't punish false statements, whether deliberate or not. Yet they do punish people who truthfully point out another commenter's dishonesty.

Dishonesty hinders discussion and makes it less productive. It's a good thing when dishonesty is pointed out publicly, because that's generally unpleasant for the dishonest person, and it tends to discourage future lying. (Alan clearly didn't enjoy having his lies pointed out in this thread.)

People who truthfully point out dishonesty are doing a service to TSZ. The rule punishes them for it and thereby encourages more dishonesty. It's a bad rule.

You seem to like the rule. But in any case, whether or not you happen to like the rule, it's irrelevant to the current dispute. I did not accuse a fellow commenter of lying, so I did not violate the rule. I did not accuse the commenter 'swamidass' of lying. I accused Joshua Swamidass of Peaceful Science of lying. The fact that he made his real life identity easy to discover was his doing, not mine. I did not link the two.

My original OP did not violate any rules. I modified it anyway, removing the accusation of lying. The moderators still refused to publish it, and Alan suspended me for 30 days, despite the fact that I had violated no rules.

Abuses don't get much more blatant than that. Alan knows he can't defend his behavior, so he's running away from the discussion.

Edited by keiths on Sep. 13 2018,09:25

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

So the rules -- for good reason -- don't punish false statements, whether deliberate or not. Yet they do punish people who truthfully point out another commenter's dishonesty.

Dishonesty hinders discussion and makes it less productive. It's a good thing when dishonesty is pointed out publicly, because that's generally unpleasant for the dishonest person, and it tends to discourage future lying.

Apparently you don't like Lizzie's rules.

There is nothing preventing you from pointing out factual errors.

--------------Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

And it's why Maggie Haberman took so much flak a few months ago for a tweet that began:

Quote

Trump told two demonstrable falsehoods this AM...

People were upset with her for using "demonstrable falsehood" instead of "lie". There would be no reason to get upset if they meant exactly the same thing. They clearly don't.

You'd know this if you had just done a little Googling.

Note something else that's quite interesting: You just accused me, incorrectly, of lying. But I haven't called for you to be punished or censored. Instead, I've simply presented evidence showing that you're wrong.

That's how it should be at TSZ.

Edited by keiths on Sep. 14 2018,08:54

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

So we are clear that you don't like Lizzie's rules. ]It's okay not to like them, but I do like them.

The difference is that I've explained why I don't like them: they punish honesty and reward dishonesty. If someone is impeding the discussion by being dishonest, and another person truthfully points that out, the latter should not be punished for his or her honesty.

You disagree. I'd be interested in hearing your argument.

Quote

And I am sad that you don't like them, because I think your disdain for comity makes you an ineffective interlocutor.

I don't disdain comity, but I do disdain dishonesty.

I'm still interested in hearing your response to this, from earlier in the thread:

Quote

I also look forward to your explanation of why no one at TSZ should accuse Donald Trump of lying, since that would amount to "discussing other people's shortcomings directly."

Why shouldn't people speak the truth about Donald Trump? He is a liar, and that has consequences for our nation. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out. There is no reason to suppress that truth.

ETA: And just a reminder that neither my original OP, nor the modified version, violated Lizzie's rules. So the shortcomings of the rules are irrelevant to the main issue being discussed here, which is the abuse of moderation privileges by Alan, Neil, and DNA_Jock.

Edited by keiths on Sep. 14 2018,12:08

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

For any readers who aren't already aware of how sleazy and corrupt Alan Fox is, these three comments are a good place to start.

Not one person at TSZ was willing to defend Alan's behavior in that debacle. He is unfit to be a moderator.

"The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks"

Quote (keiths @ Aug. 30 2018,19:21)

Well, that's interesting. No one at TSZ -- including Alan himself -- was willing to defend Alan's behavior after the ALurker fiasco. In fact, Alan was forced to issue a humilating apology for it, and he was so ashamed of it afterward that he prematurely closed the Moderation Issues (4) thread in an attempt at sweeping his disgrace under the rug.

But you, Occam's Aftershave, actually think Alan's behavior was acceptable for a moderator?

I'm curious.

1. Can you please provide a link to where "Alan was forced to issue an humiliating apology" and an additional link where Alan appears "so ashamed"?

2. Were any posts deleted or hidden from view in the Moderation Issues (4) thread? Were posters unable to continue the conversation in Moderation Issues (5)? If not, how did closing the thread sweep anything under the rug? Maybe I'm missing something and the Uncommonly Dense Thread (5) here at AtBC swept the previous 4 under the rug?

3. What in Occam's comment indicates what he might think about Alan's behavior one way or another? Perhaps it was only a personal observation about your behavior and says nothing at all about Alan.